Jico Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Plante et al., (2015) 481 Sask.R. 224 (QB)

• Judge: McMurtry, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: September 01, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 481 Sask.R. 224 (QB);2015 SKQB 262

Jico Holdings v. Plante (2015), 481 Sask.R. 224 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.024

Jico Holdings Ltd., Colin Macpherson, Ivan Herlick, John Adderley, Ulster Cattle Corp., CJM Consulting Services Inc., Clouded Moon Consulting Ltd. and Pro Canada West Energy Inc. (plaintiffs) v. Carmen Plante, Bishop & McKenzie LLP, Doug Golosky, Carol Golosky, 1400467 Alberta Ltd., Lynco Construction Ltd., Adderley Holdings Ltd., Herlick's Welding Ltd. and MacPherson Pipeline & Oilfield Consulting Ltd. (defendants)

(2013 Q.B.G. No. 1697; 2015 SKQB 262)

Indexed As: Jico Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Plante et al.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

McMurtry, J.

September 1, 2015.

Summary:

The parties were involved in complex civil litigation in Alberta respecting the sale of a business. The defendants in the Alberta action (Saskatchewan plaintiffs) commenced a parallel action in Saskatchewan against the Alberta plaintiffs, their lawyer and her firm (Saskatchewan defendants). The Saskatchewan defendants applied to strike the statement of claim filed by the Saskatchewan plaintiffs on the basis that it revealed no reasonable cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious, was otherwise an abuse of the process of the court and was not properly brought in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan plaintiffs applied to amend their statement of claim, asserting that the amendments would meet the concerns raised by the defendants with regard to sufficiency of pleadings. They also asserted that Saskatchewan court had jurisdiction over this dispute and should exercise its jurisdiction.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that Alberta was the more appropriate forum. In view of that conclusion, the court did not find it appropriate to consider amendments to the statement of claim. In the result, the court found that the parallel proceedings in Saskatchewan were an abuse of process and stayed the Saskatchewan plaintiffs' claim.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 1666

Actions - General - Forum conveniens - Stay of proceedings where action pending in another jurisdiction (lis alibi pendens) - The parties were involved in complex civil litigation in Alberta respecting the sale of a business - The defendants in the Alberta action (Saskatchewan plaintiffs) commenced a parallel action in Saskatchewan against the Alberta plaintiffs, their lawyer and her firm (Saskatchewan defendants) - The Saskatchewan defendants claimed that Alberta was the forum conveniens and the Saskatchewan court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the Saskatchewan plaintiffs' claims could be resolved in the Alberta action - The court noted that the Alberta action began two years before the Saskatchewan action and was ready to be set down for trial - In order to avoid a multiplicity of legal proceedings and conflicting decisions in different courts, the court found that Alberta was clearly the more appropriate forum - The parallel Saskatchewan proceedings were an abuse of process and were stayed - See paragraphs 36 to 71.

Counsel:

James S. Ehmann, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;

Karen M.T. Prisciak, Q.C., for Carmen Plante and Bishop McKenzie LLP;

Grant J. Scharfstein, Q.C., for the remaining defendants.

These applications were heard before McMurtry, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on September 1, 2015.